# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 14 60

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Yus uf Jo hn Jo ne s, al so kn own as J oh n J on es Yus uf

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 12 , 20 14 Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 1, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Yus uf Jo ne s ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im pose d by the di st ric t co ur t aft er rev oc at io n 1

of hi s fo ur th pe rio d o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Jo ne s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by se nt en ci ng hi m on co nd uc t no t in cl ud ed in th e writ te n vi ol at io n rep or t he rece iv ed

The Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at e s D i s t r i ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.pr io r to hi s rev oc at io n he ari ng

. Jo ne s al so ap pe al s th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of

hi s s en te nc e. W e aff

irm.

Jo ne s pl ed gu il ty in 20 10 to po ss es si on of a fir earm by an un la wfu l us er of

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (3 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 )

. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 3 6 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d 36 m on th s su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. Jo ne s ag reed to a m od ifi cat io n of relea se whi ch req ui red hi m to pa rti ci pa te
in a res id en ti al reen try pr og ram

. The pr ob at io n of fic e pe ti ti on ed fo r rev oc at io n aft er

on ly on e m on th of rel eas e be cau se of Jo ne s’ vi ol at io n o f c o n d i t io ns of hi s reen try

pr og ram

. Jo ne s st ip ul at ed to th e vi ol at io ns , an d th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed hi s rel eas e,

se nt en ci ng hi m

to 30 da y s i m

pr is on m en t an d 3 5 m on th s s up erv is ed rel eas e.

His se co nd pe rio d of su pe rv is ed rel e as e be ga n on Aug us t 22

, 20 12 ; wit hi n a week he te st ed po si ti ve fo r su bs ta nc e ab us e. Jo ne s was th erea fte r rem ov ed fro m th e

reen try pr og ram fo r m ak in g fal se st at em en ts
, di so be y in g or de rs , an d fai li ng to

m ai nt ai n em

pl oym en t. The di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed hi s rel eas e an d se n t e n c ed hi m to

5 m on th s im

pr is on men t an d 25 m on th s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. His th ird pe rio d of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e b eg an on Feb ru ary 26

, 20 13 . Jo ne s s ub se qu en tl y fai le d t o a bi de by hi s el ect ro ni c m on it or in g ag reem en t an d was ch arg ed wit h an as sa ul t an d

as so ci at in g wit h su bs ta nc e ab us ers

. The di st ric t co ur t ag ai n rev ok ed hi s rel eas e an d

se nt en ced hi m

to 7 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d 2 4 m on th s s up erv is ed rel eas e.

On Nov em

be r 7, 20 13 Jo ne s ag ai n en te red su pe rv is ed rel eas e, bu t two m on th s la te r th e pr ob at io n of

fic e fil ed a writ te n vi ol at io n rep or t d e ta il in g hi s fai lu re "t o

co m pl y wit h ru le s of el ect ro ni c m on it or in g." Jo ne s was accu se d of a cu rfew vi ol at io n fo r fai li ng to ret ur n to hi s res id en ce at th e req ui red ti m e a n d o f t a m pe rin g wit h hi s

an kl e m on it or in g de vi ce. The di st ric t co ur t he ld an ot he r rev oc at io n h e a rin g on Feb ru ary 12

, 20 14 at wh ic h Jo ne s st ip ul at ed to th e cu rfew vi ol at io n. The di st ric t

co ur t rai se d so m e ad di ti on al be ha vi or al pr ob le m s whi ch ha d be en di sc us se d at a pr io r he ari ng bu t wer e n ot m en ti on ed in th e la te st rep or t. The co ur t n ot ed th at Jo ne s had

-2

-as sa ul te d a po li ce of fic er an d h a d a t t e m

pt ed to co ve r up hi s cu rfew vi ol at io n by

fal se ly repo rti ng th at he ha d b een ki dn ap pe d.

The di st ric t co ur t a s ke d Jo ne s if he wan te d to te st ify or to cro ss ex am in e th e

pr ob at io n of

fic ers who were pr ep ared to te st ify on th e ad di ti o na l vi ol at io ns

. Jo ne s de cl in ed th e op po rtu ni ty, an d de f e ns e co un se l req ue st ed a se nt en ce of 19 m on th s wit ho ut an ot he r pe rio d o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Afte r fin di ng th at Jo ne s ha d v io la te d

hi s rel eas e by hi s cu rfew vi ol at io n an d ot he r u n co nt ro ve rte d vi ol at io ns , th e co ur t
cal cu la te d hi s gu id el in e ran ge at 5 to 11 m on th s on th e cu rfew vi ol at io n an d 8 to 14

mo n t h s o n t he ot he rs

. The di st ric t co ur t th en se nt en ced Jo ne s to 18 m on th s im pr is on m en t.

Jo ne s app eal s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pe rm is si bl y se nt en ced hi m on

co nd uc t no t in cl ud ed in th e writ te n vi ol at io n rep or t he rece iv ed pr io r to th e rev oc at io n he ari ng . He als o a ss ert s t ha t h is 18 m on th sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

Jo ne s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t c o ur t vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to rece iv e "wri tt en

no ti ce of th e al le ge d vi ol at io n" by se nt en ci ng hi m on co n d u c t n o t al le ge d in th e writ te n vi ol at io n rep or t. Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 32 .1(b )(2 )(A). Si nc e Jo ne s ha d no t rai se d

th is ob jecti on be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, th e qu es ti on is whe th er he fo rfei te d or waiv ed

th e is su e. In Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, th e Su pr em e Co ur t di st in gu is he d fo rfei tu re, th e "fa il ur e to m ak e th e ti m el y as se rti on of a rig ht " fro m waiv er, th e "i nt en ti on al

rel in qu is hm en t or ab an do nm en t of a kn own rig ht ." 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 3 (1 99 3)

. W hi le

fo rfei te d cl ai m s are rev ie wed fo r pl ai n err o r , w a i v ed cl ai m s are un rev ie wab le on

ap pe al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gut ie rrez , 13 0 F .3d 33 0, 3 32 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7)

.

A de f e n d a n t m ay waiv e th e rig ht to rece iv e writ te n no ti ce of an al le ge d

vi ol at io n pr io r to a rev oc at io n he ari ng

. See U ni te d St at es v. Tay lo r, 74 7 F.3 d 51 6,

51 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )

. A n effe ct iv e waiv er m us t be kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. Id

. A

kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary waiv er in th e co nt ex t of a rev oc at io n he ari ng do es no t req ui re

-3

-pa rti cu la r wor ds or an in te ns iv e co ll oq uy in co nt ras t to th e req ui rem en ts of Ru le 11

of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e. See Uni te d St at es v. Co rrea -Tor res , 32 6

F.3 d 18

, 23 (1 st Ci r. 20 03 ) (co ll ect in g cas es ). W e lo ok in st ead to th e to ta li ty of

ci rcu m st an ces , pa y i n g p art ic ul ar at te nt io n to th e de fen da nt 's un de rs ta nd in g of th e rig ht to writ te n n ot ic e an d h ow i t m ig ht be waiv ed . Id.

W e fin d no su pp or t fo r th e go ve rn m en t's co nt en ti on th at Jo ne s waiv ed hi s rig ht

to rece iv e writ te n no ti ce of th e ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns

. Here, th e di st r i c t co ur t ne ve r fo un d th at Jo ne s waiv ed su ch a rig ht

, an d Jo ne s co ul d no t ha ve kn owi ng ly waiv ed hi s rig ht to writ te n no ti ce wit ho ut kn owl ed ge of th at rig ht

. Id

. at 24

. Nev ert he le ss , Jo ne s de cl in ed th e di st ric t co ur t's in vi ta ti on to t e s ti fy or cro ss ex am in e wit ne ss es

. As a

res ul t, he waiv ed hi s rig ht s to "m ak e a st at em en t an d pr es en t an y in fo r mati on in

m it i g a t i o n " un de r Ru le 32 .1(b )(2 )(E) an d to qu es ti on wit ne ss es un de r Ru le

32 .1( b ) ( 2 ) ( C ). Alt ho ug h Jo ne s ha d th e rig ht to writ te n no ti ce un de r Ru le

32 .1(b )( 2) (A), wit ho ut a kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary waiv er of th at rig ht he si m pl y fo rfei te d i t.

W e rev ie w f

or fei te d ob

jecti on s fo r pl ai n erro r. Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, we wil l rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t on ly if th e erro r pr ejud ic ed th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt
, an d wou ld res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Uni te d St at es v. Je well

, 61 4

F.3 d 91 1, 91 7 (8t h C ir. 20 10 ). Alt ho ug h Jo ne s di d no t recei ve writ te n no ti ce of the

ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns pr io r t o th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , th at erro r di d no t affe ct hi s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s "b y pr ejud ic i a l l y in flu en c[i ng ] th e ou tc om e of th e di st ric t co ur t

p r o c e e d in gs ." Uni te d St at es v. Bo ss an y , 6 78 F.3 d 60 3, 60 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). J o n e s

su gg es ts th at th e la ck of writ te n no ti ce de pr iv ed hi m of th e op po rtu ni ty to co nt es t th e ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns , bu t h e fai ls to ex pl ai n wh at he wou ld ha ve do ne di ffer en tl y if

su ch no ti ce ha d be en gi ve n. U n i t e d S t a te s v. Si st ru nk , 6 12 F.3 d 98 8, 99 2 (8 th Ci r.
20 10 ). He do es no t cl ai m th at writ te n no ti ce of th e ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns wou ld ha ve le d hi m to tes ti fy

an d c ha ll en ge th e ch arg es or to cro ss ex am in e wit ne ss es

. Nor di d

he at te m pt to reo pe n th e he ari ng to in tro du ce fu rth er ev id en ce. Id

. Alt ho ug h de fen se

-4

-co un se l reco m m en de d a s e n te nc e of 19 m on th s im pr is on m en t, th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Jo ne s to on ly 18 m on th s. Thu s, e v e n if Jo ne s ha d no t rece iv ed writ te n

no ti ce of th e ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns pr io r to th e he ari ng , h e w as no t pr ejud ic ed

. W e th eref or e d en y Jo ne s' re qu es t t o re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

Jo ne s al so ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e

reas on ab le ne ss of a rev oc at io n se nt en ce un de r th e sa m e ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

as in it ia l se nt en ci ng de ci si on s. Uni te d St at es v. Goo do n, 74 2 F.3 d 37 3, 37 6 (8 th Ci r.
20 14 ). A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if "i t fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t an d

s i g ni fic an t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an irr el ev an t or im pr op er fac t o r , o r

co ns id ers th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s." Uni te d St at es v. Krei ti ng er, 57 6 F.3 d 50 0, 50 3 (8 th Ci r 20 09 ). Jo ne s

arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by se nt en ci ng hi m to 18 m on th s fo r

a "l ow- gr ad e, de m in im is " cu rfew vi ol at io n. W e di sa gr ee. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t

se nt en ce Jo ne s o n t h e cu rfew vi ol at io n al on e. Rat he r, it fo un d by a pr ep on de ran ce of ev id en ce th at Jo ne s co m m it te d ad di ti on al vi ol at io ns by fil in g a fal se po li ce rep or t

an d as sa ul ti ng a pr ob at io n of fic er. W e al so de cl in e to co ns id er th e cu rfew vi ol at io n

a de m in im is of

fen se on th e fact s of t h i s cas e si nc e Jo ne s ha s vi ol at ed fo ur

co ns ecu ti ve pe rio ds of r el eas e in th e p as t t wo years.

Giv en th e freq ue nc y of th es e vi ol at io ns , hi s la ck of at te nt io n to th e co nd it io ns of rel eas e, an d t he fai lu re o f le ss er s en te nc es to de te r hi m , hi s 18 m on th sen te nc e is

su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. Bera n, 75 1 F.3 d 87 2, 8 7 5 ( 8 t h C ir.

20 14 ). Fo r th es e reas on s th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng
Jo ne s.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-